Emails to Liz Truss and the response of the Government Equalities Office

[MrsSnippyPants]

I am going to publish an email trail here, which I believe shows just how far regulatory capture has gone. It shows how questions are ignored, words twisted, and the LAW, the Equality Act 2010 is wilfully misrepresented.
Here goes.....

^Re: any problems bring taken care oc under existinglawwww.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/14/poll-reveals-dwindling-faith-police-ability-solve-crimes/^

This is a really excellent point. One of the reasons the Conservatives have won the election was a perception that they were going to be tough on actual crime Harry Miller's case highlights the fact the police, under Stonewall guidelines, are vigorously pursuing people for tweets while failing to investigate burglaries. The Conservatives need to remember that first time Conservative voters didn't switch from Labour for more woke BS. They need to stop taking cues from lobbyists and Twitter.

You may have been the one who posted that Telegraph article in the first place, BovaryX

(P.S. if you get chucked off Mumsnet or twitter, we'll have to do a Spartacus style #MadameBovaryXCEstMoi)

Medusa
Cheers! But I am not on Twitter....

I got a similar response from my mp claiming that there are laws to deal with criminal behaviour after the fact.

I pointed out that a prosecution rate of 1.4% for rapes reported to police means rape is effectively legal and how dare he say that girls being raped is acceptable because there is a theoretical law (which doesn't count in reality) to prosecute the rapist.

I also pointed out that it is only where women's and girls safety is concerned that the government seems happy to not bother with obvious risk reduction based on clear and indisputable fact (unisex reduces sexual assault and increases womens participation in public life and girls attendance at school). Shops and homes are expected to lock up (condition of insurance usually) even though stealing is illegal. Shooting people is illegal yet we restrict gun ownership. Etc etc

But... the Equalities and Human Rights Commission have issued clarifying guidance. It says:

Under the Act, the protection from gender reassignment discrimination applies to all trans people who are proposing to go, are undergoing or have undergone (part of) a process of gender reassignment. At the same time, a trans person is protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC.

Quite rightly, you can't treat someone less favourably because they're trans. You can't deny them service, or consideration for a job, or any other area where you couldn't if they were eg black, or gay. But when it comes to sex, it's only discriminatory if you treat them less favourably than someone of their biological sex. Without a GRC, they are to be treated as male if a transwoman, and female if a transman. So it's not discriminatory to say that someone can't access (opposite) single sex provision, surely? I mean, that's why Stonewall et al campaigned so fiercely to get all exemptions removed, and why they want the GRC process made a formality. To reduce occasions when women can still say 'no'. Why campaign for a change, if that were already the law?

I’ve copied this over from a post I just made on the Lisa Nandy thread.

Inspired by MrsSnippyPants eloquent attempt at comms with conservative politicians, I have now made my own attempt with Labour.

This morning, I posted on a local Labour cllrs personal Facebook status in reply to a neighbouring MP who is part of Starmer’s campaign (also posting from a personal account) saying,

‘I was voting Nandy until she said ‘rapists should go to the prison of their choosing’ and that she and Long-Bailey wanted to expel women like me (women who think penises in women’s prisons are a bad idea). My vote for Starmer is begrudging and I would like that fed back to his campaign, please!’

The Leader of our borough council is on the same thread.

Apologies for letting the side down on the eloquence front!

Wellbehavedwomen thank you very much for posting the above link and clarification. I am trying to understand what the law says regarding a service provider's rights and responsibilities regarding single-sex spaces. On that subject, am I correct to understand that a business which has separate changing rooms for men and women (pool, gym, spa) must allow a person with a GRC to use the single sex changing room corresponding to their GRC? If so, how is that enforced? Is it appropriate to ask someone to see their GRC?

Well, my MSP has previously helped with implementing change, though on a completely separate (and easily solved) issue.

Totally tempted to just ask her: how many? How many girls and women are enough? And which ones? Because I'm guessing politicians don't mean that their daughters, sisters, mothers - they, themselves - should be comforted by the idea of the full force of the law after the fact.

i might ask her in a very public place. Perhaps she can point to the sacrificial ones, and then advise for whom the full force of the law (1-2%?) will be helpful?

I pointed out that a prosecution rate of 1.4% for rapes reported to police means rape is effectively legal and how dare he say that girls being raped is acceptable because there is a theoretical law (which doesn't count in reality) to prosecute the rapist.

“I also pointed out that it is only where women's and girls safety is concerned that the government seems happy to not bother with obvious risk reduction based on clear and indisputable fact (unisex reduces sexual assault and increases womens participation in public life and girls attendance at school). Shops and homes are expected to lock up (condition of insurance usually) even though stealing is illegal. Shooting people is illegal yet we restrict gun ownership. Etc etc”

THIS

Thank you LangBanned

I’ve yet to see a direct response from an MP about any of these points. You just get a generic, vulnerable member of the community and be kind. Honestly I’m furious more and more. Every time I think one of these mps has tipped me over the edge. Along comes another one

It is now 4 days since I sent my last email and no response.

Anybody want to start a sweepstake?

In fairness, the holding replies might link with the recent reshuffle.

Civil Servants will recognise that there is possibly a change in policy direction so waiting for a steer. Post election Minister was waiting to see what happened in the reshuffle. New Minister may still be reading in, and aware that this is something that No 10 and Cabinet may want to consider. Cabinet are buried in budget and Brexit. Plus possibly wanting to see how the current debate within the Labour party plays out. Wider criticism of Labours very forward pro-trans position, will make it easier for the Tories to take a step or two back from their current stance.

So Civil Servants can't write their policy submission till they have a steer on their Minister's thinking. Minister knows that this is a potential hot potato so won't give a steer till they have No 10 clearance. No 10 see it as a difficult and evolving subject, with no need for early action, other than bits of tidying up following Court rulings. (The Harry case and probably the GIDS one, if it goes the right way.)

In the meantime, waffly responses. Which does not mean they are not being read and noted. Indeed, given the Minister is probably actively thinking about the way forward, probably a perfect time for them to receive lots of correspondence, both public and MP.

Fair points Needmoresleep but still no excuse for them misrepresenting the Equality Act. Pretty sure that hasn't changed.

Perhaps something that those writing to potentially sympathetic Tory MPs could point out. It might be a standard line that Penny Mordaunt, following advice from Stonewall or equivalent, approved, but which should be reviewed.

Wasn't it in the Harry judgement where it was pointed out that the Equalities Act was badly drafted, or was that something out. In any case I suspect many may regret what they wished for, as post Brexit, many Tories may be inclined to review the whole arena of EU imposed human rights, equalities, and employment legislation. A sort of bonfire of the protections.

Oh and in answer to your question. Three months.

My Tory MP understands the issues and I got an email back from her a couple of years ago when I contacted her to express my concern about this when they started proposing GRA reform.

So I’m not sure whether it is pointless to email her again when I know she is against making it easier for predatory males to enter women’s spaces. I’m sure she’ll vote against anyway. But maybe it would be good to remind her how lots of people feel about this? What do you think?

MrsSnippy You asked how many MPs are on our side - mine definitely is. I had a thread (over a year ago now!) which detailed some of his response to my letter re self id.

Very right wing Conservative, church going, one of the safest seats in the country. We're very rural. If people knew about it, self id would not be a vote winner here.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3390955-my-mp-thinks-self-id-is-ridiculous

Thanks MyMP I must have missed that first time around. Very interesting thread.

Nine days and still no response. I'm seeing my MP on Friday so I will write a cover letter and pass on all the correspondence to him and ask him to forward it to Liz Truss.

MrsSnippy

What specific aspect are you going to focus on when you see your MP?

The GEO misrepresenting the law I think Thin, and what LangBanned said upthread;

"I pointed out that a prosecution rate of 1.4% for rapes reported to police means rape is effectively legal and how dare he say that girls being raped is acceptable because there is a theoretical law (which doesn't count in reality) to prosecute the rapist."

“I also pointed out that it is only where women's and girls safety is concerned that the government seems happy to not bother with obvious risk reduction based on clear and indisputable fact (unisex reduces sexual assault and increases womens participation in public life and girls attendance at school). Shops and homes are expected to lock up (condition of insurance usually) even though stealing is illegal. Shooting people is illegal yet we restrict gun ownership. Etc etc”

Good luck with your MP today, MrsSnippyPants !

Thanks Snippy- very good points!

Sorry I can’t find the the longer more recent thread about the call for evidence re GRA reform and the responses which seem to be taking forever but this thread looked quite good anyway.

Bizarrely they have also included a response that was clearly intended for the toilets call for evidence which is still open.

There are some absolute shockers - the RCN is keen to throw women under the bus and the GMB.

This one was interesting though - it is from the Judge who preside over the GRC panel and describes the process in detail.
committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/19562/pdf/